DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS PORTLAND DISTRICT, PORTLAND OREGON and UNITED POWER TRADES UNION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
AUTHORITY

Office of Administrative Law
Judges

WASHINGTON, D.C.
20424-0001

MEMORANDUM DATE: April 20,
2004

TO: The Federal Labor Relations
Authority

FROM: PAUL B. LANG

Administrative Law Judge

SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT OF THE
ARMY

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF
ENGINEERS

PORTLAND DISTRICT,
PORTLAND

OREGON

Respondent

and Case No.
SF-CA-04-0066

UNITED POWER TRADES UNION

Charging Party

Pursuant to Section 2423.34(b) of
the Rules and Regulations 5 C.F.R. § 2423.34(b), I am hereby
transferring the above case to the Authority. Enclosed are copies
of my Decision, the service sheet, and the transmittal form sent to
the parties. Also enclosed are the transcript, exhibits, and any
briefs filed by the parties.

Enclosures

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
AUTHORITY

Office of Administrative Law
Judges

WASHINGTON, D.C.
20424-0001

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF
ENGINEERS

PORTLAND DISTRICT,
PORTLAND

OREGON

Respondent

and

UNITED POWER TRADES UNION

Charging
Party

Case No. SF-CA-04-0066

NOTICE OF TRANSMITTAL OF
DECISION

The above-entitled case having been
heard before the undersigned Administrative Law Judge pursuant to
the Statute and the Rules and Regulations of the Authority, the
under-signed herein serves his Decision, a copy of which is
attached hereto, on all parties to the proceeding on this date and
this case is hereby transferred to the Federal Labor Relations
Authority pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 2423.34(b).

PLEASE BE ADVISED that the filing
of exceptions to the attached Decision is governed by 5 C.F.R. §§
2423.40-2423.41, 2429.12, 2429.21-2429.22, 2429.24-2429.25, and
2429.27.

Any such exceptions must be filed
on or before

May 21, 2004, and addressed to:

Office of Case Control

Federal Labor Relations
Authority

1400 K Street, NW,
2ndFloor

Washington, DC
20424-0001

________________________________

PAUL B. LANG

Administrative Law Judge

Dated: April 20, 2004

Washington, DC

OALJ 04-26

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
AUTHORITY

Office of Administrative Law
Judges

WASHINGTON, D.C.
20424-0001

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF
ENGINEERS

PORTLAND DISTRICT,
PORTLAND

OREGON

Respondent

and

UNITED POWER TRADES UNION

Charging
Party

Case No. SF-CA-04-0066

Amita Baman Tracy

Stefanie Arthur

For the General
Counsel

James Herald

For the
Respondent

Travis Brock

For the Charging
Party

Before: PAUL B. LANG

Administrative Law
Judge

DECISION

Statement of the Case

On September 4, 2003, and October
28, 2003, the United

Power Trades Organization (Union)
filed unfair labor practice charges against the Department of the
Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District, Portland,
Oregon (Respondent). On November 26, 2003, the Regional Director
of the San Francisco Region of the Federal Labor Relations
Authority (Authority) issued an Order Consolidating Cases,
Consolidated Complaint and Notice of Hearing in which it was
alleged that the Respondent committed unfair labor practices in
violation of § 7116(a)(1),(5) and (8) of the Federal Service
Labor-Management Relations Statute by refusing to provide the Union
with certain information that it had requested.

A hearing was held in Portland,
Oregon on January 29, 2004.743461140
The parties were represented by counsel and were afforded the
opportunity to present evidence and to cross-examine witnesses.
This Decision is based upon consideration of all of the evidence,
the demeanor of witnesses and the post-hearing briefs submitted by
the parties.

Positions of the Parties

The General Counsel maintains that
the Respondent

unlawfully refused to provide the
Union with a copy of relevant portions of an investigative report
(report) regarding, among other subjects, alleged nepotism at the
Dalles-John Day Project, which is a site to which bargaining unit
employees are assigned. According to the General Counsel, the
report requested by the Union meets all of the criteria for
disclosure: it is normally maintained by the Respondent in the
regular course of business, it is reasonably available and it is
necessary for a full and proper discussion, understanding and
negotiation of subjects within the scope of collective bargaining.
In its request for the report, the Union described a particularized
need as well as the reason that the report was necessary for the
Union to carry out its representational function.

The General Counsel further
maintains that the report is not "guidance, advice, counsel or
training provided for management officials or supervisors, related
to collective bargaining" within the meaning of § 7114(b)(4)(C) of
the Statute. Furthermore, the Respondent failed to raise any
anti-disclosure interest such as would justify its refusal to
provide the Union with a copy of the report. The General Counsel
argues that, if the Respondent felt that the report was exempt from
disclosure, it should have submitted it to the Administrative Law
Judge for anin camerainspection.

The Respondent maintains that the
Union has no particularized need for the report because it was
prepared in response to the Union's concerns about the hiring of
the son of one of the Respondent's managers, whereas the Union's
purported need for the report arises out of a grievance regarding
the alleged role played by the same manager in recommending the
promotion of his son.

The Respondent also contends that
the Union's purported need for the report is based upon its
mistaken impression that an agency's hiring of a relative of a
current employee is inherently improper. Therefore, the grievance
upon which the Union based its request for the report is invalid
and there is no valid basis for the Union's request for
information.

According to the Respondent, it
fulfilled its obligations to the Union by providing it with a
written statement that the investigating officer had concluded that
there had been no unlawful nepotism at the Dalles-John Day Project.
When the Union submitted its written request for a copy of the
report, it stated that it needed the information in order to
evaluate the grievance which it had submitted in 2003. The Union
did not comply with the Respondent's request that it provide
further details in support of its alleged need for the report. The
Respondent therefore maintains that the Union's statement of a
particularized need is inadequate since nothing in the report could
possibly aid the Union in its evaluation and prosecution of the
grievance.

Finally, the Respondent argues that
it has a legitimate interest in keeping the report confidential in
view of the fact that the investigator promised confidentiality to
a number of witnesses and that the report addresses personnel
matters for which the Union has no legitimate need.

Findings of Fact

The pertinent facts, as set forth
below, are undisputed.

1. The Respondent is an "agency"
as defined in § 7103(a)(3) of the Statute.

2. The Union is a "labor
organization" as defined in § 7103(a)(4) of the Statute and is the
exclusive representative of a unit of Respondent's employees which
is suitable for collective bargaining. That unit includes
employees who are assigned to Respondent's Portland District, which
includes the Dalles-John Day Project.1494445591

3. In December of 2001, Travis
Brock, the President of the Union, met with Colonel Randall J.
Butler, then Commander of the Portland District. Brock had
requested the meeting so that he could inform Butler of complaints
that he had received from bargaining unit members concerning
nepotism at the Dalles-John Day Project. A number of students had
been hired noncompetitively through the Student Career Experience
Program. Several of the students were the children of managers and
certain bargaining unit members felt that their hiring was
inappropriate.1828931341 Butler told Brock that he would consider the matter and would
advise him of how he would address the issues which Brock had
raised.

4. By e-mail dated January 14,
2002 (Jt. Ex. 1), Butler provided Brock with a copy of a memorandum
to Major Stephen J. Ward by which Ward was appointed as an
investigating officer to conduct an informal investigation into
complaints concerning "hiring, release of information, and vehicle
usage at The Dalles-John Day Project." Among the issues to be
addressed in the investigation was:

b. The family relationships that
exist among the employees at The Dalles-John Day Project including
whether the hiring, supervision or performance on the jobs have
been unduly influenced by said family relationships in violation of
any laws, regulations, or policy in place and relating to nepotism
in federal employment.

The intent of my letter is to
inform you of the investigation results, the actions I am taking
and the outcome I am looking for. First, I did not intend to give
you a copy of the investigation and its conclusions. I agreed to
do an investigation andinformyou of its outcome and any actions that I might
take as a result of the investigation. (Emphasis in
original.)

Butler went on to state that the
investigating officer had presented him with his findings and
recommendations on or about February 12, 2002. According to
Butler, "The packet was very extensive and it took me sometime
[sic] to review
the entire file." The investigating officer had concluded that
there was no merit to any of the four allegations described in the
memorandum of appointment which accompanied Butler's e-mail to
Brock of January 14, 2002. Accordingly, Butler did not plan to
take any disciplinary action. However, the investigating officer
had

. . . described the work
environment at the project as one lacking trust, with poor
communication and evidencing an overall power struggle between
management and the union.

Butler informed Brock that he had
held informal "listening sessions" with employees at the project
and would use the services of the Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service to correct the problems. The process would
take at least one year and would include the participation of Union
representatives.

6. On September 14, 2003, the
Union initiated a grievance (Jt. Ex. 3) in which it was alleged
that Rod Ontiveros, the Chief of Maintenance at the Dalles Dam and
the Chairman of the Dalles/John Day Power Plant Training Committee,
was the senior rater of his son, Ronnie Ontiveros. It was further
alleged that Rod Ontiveros was in a position to recommend his son
for promotion. According to the Union, this situation was in
violation of 5 U.S.C. § 3110(b)1819985779and of certain regulations.

7. By letter of September 22, 2003
(Jt. Ex. 4), from Larry L. Ferres, the Union's Shop Steward for the
John Day Project, to Kathleen Dooney Foster, the Labor Relations
Specialist for the Portland District, the Union requested that the
Respondent provide ten pieces of information, including the portion
of the report which concerns the issue regarding family
relationships at the Dalles-John Day Project and their effect on
hiring, supervision and performance.1590821584 The stated purpose for this request was the grievance of
September 14, 2003, and reports that Ronnie Ontiveros was not
required to rotate through all of the craft crews as is required of
all other trainees. According to Ferres' letter, "This would show
favoritism based on nepotism." Ferres further stated
that:

The Union has depended upon
statements made by bargaining unit members concerning the nepotism
in the Power Plant Training Program and the Prohibited Personnel
Practices that continue to occur there. We need to review any
documents that would prove or disprove these allegations or impact
our grievance and any settlement efforts or arbitration efforts.
We need to view these documents so we can come to our own
conclusions.

The letter also contains the
following statement of the uses to which the Union would put the
requested information:

The Union anticipates that the
documents, records and report requested would support the
allegations of nepotism and the violations sited
[sic] in the
grievance. Analyzing the documents, records, and report ourselves
will enable us to better evaluate the validity of [the] grievance
as it will moves [sic] through the grievance steps. In addition, it may help us
reach a settlement in the above-mentioned grievance. Or it may
show other violations of our CBA; law or regulations for which we
will need to seek remedies.

Ferres' letter concludes with the
following statement of the connection between its proposed use of
the information and its representational
responsibilities:

As the exclusive bargaining agent
for all personnel of the bargaining unit, the Union has a
representational responsibility to its members to enforce personnel
law[,] rules[,] regulations and the CBA and to settle any
grievances on the best terms possible while being fair to all
bargaining unit members. In addition, it's the Union's lawful duty
to represent the interests of all employees in the unit it
represents. Settling grievances or pursuing them with all
available data in the best manner possible is the Union's
responsibility. We need this data and report to fulfill our
responsibilities.

8. By letter dated October 15,
2003 (Jt. Ex. 5), Foster responded to Ferres' request for
information. Nine of the ten requested items were either provided
to the Union or were identified as being nonexistent. However,
Foster stated that the Union's request for the portion of the
investigative report concerning nepotism, "does not meet the
standard for the production of this report." Foster gave the
following reasons for the Respondent's position:

a. The Union had not identified a
particularized need for the information inasmuch as the
investigative report deals with events which occurred in or before
February of 2002. The Union was already aware of family members
who were hired during that time. While a report about those events
might be "at the most, relevant or useful", it is not required for
the Union to represent its members.

b. Any grievance based upon the
facts set forth in the investigative report would be untimely. The
current grievance would be untimely to the extent that it is based
upon actions which are alleged to have occurred prior to July of
2003.1894135285

c. The Respondent initiated the
investigation in response to the Union's contention that the
matters to be investigated were grievable or otherwise actionable.
Therefore, even if the Union had stated a particularized need, the
investigative report is not subject to disclosure because it
constitutes advice, guidance and counsel for management officials
relating to collective bargaining.

9. The Union has pursued the
grievance on nepotism through the third step (GC Ex. 2 through
7).

Discussion and Analysis

The Legal Framework

The right of a union to receive
information from an agency arises out of § 7114(b)(4) of the
Statute, according to which the duty of an agency to bargain in
good faith includes the obligation to furnish to an exclusive
bargaining agent, upon request, and to the extent not prohibited by
law, information

(A) which is normally maintained by
the agency in the regular course of business;

(B) which is reasonably available
and necessary for full and proper discussion, understanding, and
negotiation of subjects within the scope of collective bargaining;
and

InInternal Revenue Service, Washington, D.C. and Internal
Revenue Service, Kansas City Service Center, Kansas City,
Missouri, 50 FLRA 661, 669 (1995)
(IRS) the
Authority held that, in order for a union to invoke the right to
receive information under § 7114(b)(4) of the Statute, it must
establish a particularized need for the information. In order to
show a particularized need the union must articulate with
specificity why it needs the information, including the uses to
which it will put the information and the connection between those
uses and its representational responsibilities under the Statute.
The union's responsibility for articulation requires more than a
conclusory statement in order that the agency can make a reasoned
judgment as to its obligation to disclose. However, in stating its
particularized need, the union is not required to describe the
nature of the agency's alleged misapplication or violation of
policy, procedure, law or regulation,Health Care Financing Administration,
56 FLRA 156, 159, 162 (2000).

According toIRS, once the union shows a
particularized need, the agency, in order to fulfill its
obligations under the Statute, must either produce the requested
information or establish a countervailing nondisclosure interest in
a nonconclusory manner. The agency must state its nondisclosure
interests at or near the time of the union's request for
information,Internal Revenue Service,
Austin District Office, Austin, Texas, 51
FLRA 1166, 1180, n.14 (1996) (IRS
Austin).

The Respondent does not deny that
the investigative report is kept in the ordinary course of business
and that it is reasonably available. Therefore, the issues to be
addressed are whether the Union articulated a particularized need
for the report and, if so, whether the Respondent then stated a
legitimate nondisclosure interest.

The Union's Statement of
Particularized Need Was Sufficient

The Respondent's position, as
stated in Foster's letter of October 15, 2003, to Ferres, as well
as the Respondent's post-hearing brief, is that the Union could not
possibly have had a particularized need for the report because its
request was based upon two invalid premises,i.e., that the hiring of the children
of managers was invalid and that the report was necessary to its
prosecution of the nepotism grievance which the Union initiated in
2003.

An examination of Ferres' letter of
September 22, 2003, to Foster, indicates that the Respondent has
taken an excessively limited view of the Union's statement of
particularized need. Contrary to the Respondent's
characterization, Ferres' letter states that the Union's need for
the report is based, not only on the grievance, but on, "the
allegation raised to us that Ronnie Ontiveros is receiving
preferential treatment by not being required to rotate through the
craft crews in accordance with the Regional Hydropower Trainee
Program Agreement." Ferres went on to state that:

The Union has depended upon
statements made by bargaining unit members concerning the nepotism
in the Power Plant Training Program and the Prohibited Personnel
Practices that continue to occur there. We need to review any documents that would prove or disprove
these allegationsor impact our grievance
and any settlement efforts or arbitration efforts.
We need to view these documents so we can
come to our own conclusions. (Emphasis
supplied.)

The Respondent's position is also
inconsistent with Butler's statement of the scope of the
investigation as set forth in his memorandum to Ward (Jt. Ex. 1).
Ward was directed to conduct a general inquiry into the family
relationships among the employees at The Dalles-John Day Project as
well as whether "hiring, supervision or performance on the jobs
have been unduly influenced by said family relationships in
violation of any laws, regulations, or policy." That language
indicates that Ward had been assigned to conduct a general inquiry
into nepotism and that his assignment was broader in scope than the
concerns which Brock had originally expressed to Butler.

In summary, neither the Union's
statement of particularized need nor the scope of Butler's
instructions to Ward were limited to an individual grievance, to a
specific incident or to particular employees. The Union's
statement of a particularized need, as set forth in Ferres' letter
of September 22, 2003 (Jt. Ex. 4), is both detailed and
nonconclusory. It sets forth the reason that it needed the report,
the uses to which it would put the report and the nexus between
those uses and the Union's statutory responsibilities. That
information was sufficient to allow the Respondent to make an
informed response. Therefore, the Union met the standards for a
statement of particularized need which were established by the
Authority inIRS.1479513154

The Respondent Did Not State a
Legitimate Nondisclosure Interest

For the reasons set forth above, I
have determined that the Union's statement of particularized need
was sufficient to have obligated the Respondent to produce the
requested information in the absence of a countervailing
nondisclosure interest. The only nondisclosure interest
articulated by the Respondent is contained in the last paragraph of
the second page of Foster's letter of October 15, 2003

(Jt. Ex. 5).

In her letter Foster asserts that
the report constitutes advice, guidance and counsel for management
officials relating to collective bargaining. The stated rationale
for this position is that "part of the reason the District
investigated the issues" was that the Union suggested "that the
matters to be investigated were grievable or otherwise
actionable."264117037

In its post-hearing brief, the
Respondent relies on the holding of the Authority inNational Labor Relations Board,

38 FLRA 506 (1993)
(NLRB),vacated and remanded on other grounds sub nom.
N.L.R.B. v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 952 F.2d 523 (D.C. Cir. 1992) in support of the proposition
that it need not disclose the report. The Respondent's reliance is
misplaced. InNLRBthe Authority construed "collective bargaining" as referring
to the process of bargaining as opposed to the substantive issues
over which the bargaining occurs, 38 FLRA at 519. The application
of that distinction is fatal to the Respondent's position. Ward
was not tasked with the responsibility of recommending a strategy
for the Respondent to follow in dealing with the Union. His
assignment was limited to the substantive issue of nepotism. While
Ward's findings as to that issue might affect the Respondent's
bargaining strategy, those findings are distinct from
recommendations concerning the process of collective bargaining.
To the extent that the report does contains advice, guidance and
counsel for management officials relating to collective bargaining,
those portions of the report may be sanitized.

The Union is Entitled to the
Requested Information

In stating that the report would,
at the most, be "relevant or useful" to the Union, Foster was
echoing the language of the Authority inIRSthat, in establishing a
particularized need, the Union must go beyond a showing that the
report would be relevant or useful, but must establish that it is
"required in order for the union adequately to represent its
members", 50 FLRA at 669.

The Respondent maintains that the
Union's request was insufficient because there was no showing that
the report was necessary. Contrary to the Respondent's assertions,
the Authority has made it clear that a union is not to be held to a
rigid standard in establishing a particularized need. As stated
inIRS:

. . . a request need not be so
specific as . . . to require a union to reveal its strategies or
compromise the identity of potential grievants . . . .
Moreover, the degree of specificity
required of a union must take into account the fact that, in many
cases, . . . a union will not be aware of the contents of a
requested document. (Id.at 670, n.13; emphasis
supplied.)

A finding as to whether an agency
has improperly withheld requested information from a union is to be
made by determining whether the union has established a
particularized need and, if so, whether the agency's countervailing
interest, if any, outweighs the union's need. As the Authority has
emphasized, this analytic approach "is not intended to impose an
insurmountable burden on a party requesting information." 50 FLRA
at 671.

The Respondent argues that, if it
is compelled to produce the report, the Union will be encouraged to
submit legally deficient grievances in order to obtain access to
information for which it has no legitimate need (footnote 4 to
Respondent's post-hearing brief). The simple answer to that
argument is that, as indicated inIRSand its progeny, the interests of
unions and agencies are to be balanced on a case by case basis.
Suffice it to say that the Union's statement of particularized need
in this case has been found to outweigh the conclusory
nondisclosure statement of the Respondent.

In applying the analytical approach
ofIRS, I have,
for the reasons stated herein, determined that the Respondent's
statement of its nondisclosure interest does not outweigh the
Union's statement of particularized need. Accordingly, I have
concluded that the Respondent committed an unfair labor practice in
violation of § 7116(a)(1), (5) and (8) of the Statute by refusing
to provide the Union with the portions of the report concerning
nepotism as is required under § 7114(d)(4) of the Statute. I
therefore recommend that the Authority adopt the following Order:

ORDER

Accordingly, I recommend that the
Authority adopt the following Order:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to §
2423.41(c) of the Rules and Regulations of the Authority and § 7118
of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute
(Statute), that the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Portland District, Portland, Oregon, shall:

1. Cease and desist
from:

(a) Failing and refusing to provide
the United Power Trades Organization (Union) with a copy of the
portions of the 2002 AR 15-6 report concerning nepotism at the
Dalles-John Day Project, including all relevant testimony, evidence
and reports.

(b) In any like or related manner,
interfering with, restraining or coercing its bargaining unit
employees in the exercise of the rights assured them under the
Statute.

2. Take the following affirmative
action in order to effectuate the purposes and policies of the
Statute:

(a) Provide the United Power Trades
Organization with a copy of the portions of the 2002 AR 15-6 report
concerning nepotism at the Dalles-John Day Project, including all
relevant testimony, evidence and reports.

(b) Post the attached Notice for 60
days at its facilities in the Portland District on forms to be
furnished by the Authority. The Notice is to be signed by the
Commander of the Portland District and is to be posted at all
locations in the Portland District where employees represented by
the Union are assigned, including all bulletin boards and other
places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken to ensure that such Notices are not
altered, defaced or covered by any other material.

(c) Pursuant to § 2423.41(e) of the
Rules and Regulations of the Authority, notify the Regional
Director of the San Francisco Region of the Authority in
writing,

within 30 days of the date of this
Order, as to what steps have been taken to comply.

Issued, Washington, DC, April 20,
2004.

Paul B. Lang

Administrative Law Judge

NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES

POSTED BY ORDER OF

THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
AUTHORITY

The Federal Labor Relations
Authority has found that the Department of the Army, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Portland District, Portland, Oregon has
violated the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and
has ordered us to post and abide by this Notice.

WE HEREBY NOTIFY OUR EMPLOYEES
THAT:

WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to
provide the United Power Trades Organization with a copy of the
portions of the 2002 AR 15-6 report concerning nepotism at the
Dalles-John Day Project, including all relevant testimony, evidence
and reports.

WE WILL NOT, in any like or related
manner, interfere with, restrain or coerce bargaining unit
employees in the exercise of the rights assured them under the
Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.

WE WILL provide the United Power
Trades Organization with a copy of the portions of the 2002 AR 15-6
report concerning nepotism at the Dalles-John Day Project,
including all relevant testimony, evidence and reports.

______________________________

(Agency)

Dated: ______________ By:
______________________________

(Signature) (Title)

This Notice must remain posted for
60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be
altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.

If employees have any questions
concerning this Notice or compliance with its provisions, they may
communicate directly with the Regional Director, San Francisco
Regional Office, whose address is: Federal Labor Relations
Authority, 901 Market Street, Suite 220, San Francisco, CA 94103,
and whose telephone number is: 415-356-5002.

Prior to the submission of opening
statements and the introduction of evidence the General Counsel
moved to amend the complaint to reflect the withdrawal of the
unfair labor practice charge which had been filed on September 4,
2003, and which had been designated as Case No. SF-CA-03-0776. The
Respondent did not oppose the motion and it was granted with the
proviso that the Respondent need not amend its Answer. The General
Counsel submitted an Amended Complaint with his post-hearing
brief.

The cited portion of the statute
prohibits public officials from influencing the employment or
advancement of relatives in the agencies in which the public
officials are serving or over which they exercise control. The
statute does not contain an outright prohibition against the
employment of the relatives of public officials in such
agencies.

Even if the Union's statement of
particularized need had been linked solely to the nepotism
grievance, it still would have been sufficient in spite of the
Respondent's assertion that claims based on incidents prior to the
date of the report are time-barred. The merits of an actual or
prospective grievance play no part in determining whether an agency
is required to produce requested information. All issues
pertaining to contractual interpretation are to be determined by
the Arbitrator rather than by the Authority,Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC and Internal Revenue
Service, Omaha District, Omaha, Nebraska,
25 FLRA 181, 185 (1987).

In its post-hearing brief the
Respondent has, for the first time, introduced the additional issue
of the confidentiality of witnesses. That issue will not be
considered since it was not raised at or around the time of the
Union's request for the report,IRS
Austin.